Bitcoin Vs. Ethereum: Which Has The Better Monetary Policy
Crypto Briefing | Jul 01, 2020 04:16AM ET
- Ethereum's monetary policy dictates the issuance of just enough coins needed to adequately compensate miners.
- With a human-determined monetary policy, Ethereum's issuance isn't immune to malicious players.
- Bitcoin offers a more stringent monetary policy, which may not be great economically, but enhances decentralization.
- There is no single "best policy" as each person will put varying weights on each trade-off.
An age-old debate between the Bitcoin and Ethereum communities revolves around which network has the better monetary policy. The answer to this lies on a spectrum and isn’t as binary as one would think.
h2 Ethereum’s Minimum Necessary Issuance/h2There’s a stark difference between inflation and monetary inflation. The latter is an increase in a country's, or crypto network’s, total money supply. Inflation, on the other hand, is an increase in the price of goods and services in an economy. Issuance on crypto networks is a matter of monetary inflation.
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum issue native coins to miners as a reward for validating new transactions and blocks.
Unlike Bitcoin, which everyone knows tackles monetary inflation with block reward halvings, Ethereum takes a more digestible route. Rather than the network abruptly reducing block rewards, a policy of “minimum necessary issuance” is in place.
This policy dictates the Ethereum blockchain to issue only what is required to secure the network, allowing issuance to decrease with time.
It’s a more sustainable approach to monetary policy as miners are slowly weaned off high rewards instead of being suddenly sucker-punched.
While this allows for issuance to be better planned, the mechanism is at risk of being captured by malicious actors.
Ethereum’s monetary policy is subjective – not hard-coded.
As a result, bad actors can infiltrate the network and implement changes that are detrimental to long-term growth. While this has never been the case due to laudable community oversight and the ability to fork at a whim if such a plan is discovered, it is nevertheless a potential risk.
h2 Bitcoin’s Strict Halvings/h2On the other side of the spectrum, we have Bitcoin.
As previously discussed, Bitcoin issuance is cut in half every four years, in a process known as a halving. Thanks to the halving, the total amount of BTC that can ever exist is an easily predicted data point.
Get The News You Want
But this predictability comes at a cost. Bitcoin miners are forced to r a revenue-halving every four years. But, only miner revenue from block rewards is reduced. Income received via transaction fees stays the same; historically, fee collection has increased over time.
This phenomenon requires Bitcoin to develop into a high-fee market, making transactions on the blockchain more expensive over time. As per this theory, one day, fees will be the dominant form of miner compensation.
The problem with this theory is that as transactions get more expensive, users may migrate to other means of transacting. Bitcoin will still be a censorship-resistant network with unstoppable payments, but will that matter if fees are $20 a transaction?
On the positive side, Bitcoin’s monetary policy is levels more decentralized and immune to capture compared to Ethereum.
While a hard-coded monetary framework is not ideal for a network, it eliminates human intervention giving users a sense of relief that they know exactly what’s going to happen.
h2 What’s the Endgame?/h2The data makes certain conclusions fairly obvious. Ethereum has a more financially sustainable framework, but Bitcoin has a more decentralized and malice-proof issuance policy.
Further, Bitcoin halvings may reduce the absolute number of BTC received by miners, but this has not been a problem in the past. BTC price always makes up for this deficit and more. This gives miners an added incentive to boost prices and shape market cycles.
Ethereum, on the other hand, is set to undergo a period of transformation.
Proof of Stake is on the horizon as Ethereum 2.0’s imminent launch draws closer. This move will increase Ethereum’s monetary inflation for the short-term, as the Proof of Work blockchain and Proof of Stake Beacon chain run together. As PoW is gradually wound down, ETH issuance dramatically reduces.
In fact, with the advent of EIP 1559 , negative issuance for ETH is entirely possible if fee burns overpower ETH issuance. This would turn ETH into a deflationary asset – an outcome that excites some and irks others.
Overall, which policy is better differs from person to person.
Hard-core cypher-punks may be willing to sacrifice financial stability in exchange for a more decentralized policy, tilting them slowly towards Bitcoin.
More economic-minded individuals may not mind trading away some degree of decentralization in exchange for an issuance framework that ensures the long-term viability of the network.
Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.